Required Reading: NAFTA and COOL

[Willowcreek]

Thats all that the US has asked for too-- testing...Test all cattle slaughtered before you ship the beef south- and finish developing the Live BSE test (that CFIA seems to want to avoid) and test all live cattle before you send them south.....

No different Kato- we can't stop the spread of BSE and/or eradicate it by shipping it around!!!!

[jensend]

ot: Thats all that the US has asked for too-- testing...Test all cattle slaughtered before you ship the beef south

you gotta be kidding - that's the last thing the americans want! if we tested everything it wouldn't be long you'd have to as well; people would demand it or have you forgotten about those 'atypical' cases you were forced to disclose? atypical was a way to save face for your crooked testing program. you're getting a little loony, check the med levels.

[Willowcreek]

Actually-- jensend-- many US producers have called for testing more in both countries- R-CALF has-- and for allowing US companies like Creekstone to be allowed to test-and market tested beef...

The disease will never be controlled or eradicated if its forever shipped back and forth between countries that have differing safeguards in place....

Since neither country will do that-- consumers have demanded Country of Origin Labeling so they can make the choice of where their beef comes- especially when they continually see the consumer publications/web sites having headline articles on the Canadian "Mad Cow of the Month" finding ....

[farmers_son]

http://www.farmscape.ca/f1Scripts.aspx?m=INT&p1=479


Minnesota Pork Producers Concerned with Potential Impact of Mandatory COOL

Karl Kynoch - Manitoba Pork Council

Farmscape for January 17, 2008 (Episode 2716)

The Chair of Manitoba Pork Council reports, like their Canadian counterparts, swine producers in Minnesota are extremely concerned about the potential negative impact of Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling.
A Manitoba Pork Council delegation is in Minneapolis this week for the Minnesota Pork Congress and to meet with U.S. industry representatives as part of an ongoing effort to promote trade advocacy.
Pork Council Chair Karl Kynoch says the number one issue in that state is Mandatory U.S. Country of Origin Labelling and number two is the low prices in the industry and all of the red ink.

Clip-Karl Kynoch-Manitoba Pork Council
There's a lot of producers right now that have been notified from some of the packing plants in the U.S. that come September '08 that they're not going to continue to buy pigs that originated out of Canada.
So producers here are having to start and make the decision do they continue buying pigs here in February.
Then again in Canada the same thing the same thing is a concern.
Are they going to be able to keep shipping their hogs down here so we're really down to crunch time on this Country of Origin Labelling and that's just a huge concern and causing producers to make some huge business decisions.
I think what would really help this is if we could get to voluntary.
The big concern is right now the retailers in the U.S. do not want to have two labels sitting in their store.
What we need to be able to get on the product is a dual label that would say could contain product out of Canada and the U.S.
We had some meetings here.
We actually met with senate and congress representatives.
We met over at the Canadian consulate with these people and I'll tell you, they were really surprised and concerned over the impact that we were pointing out that this is going to have on producers right here in Minnesota, that in fact, this Country of Origin Labelling could shut down a lot of these small farms right here in Minnesota and I think that really touched home.
We were really pleased with the meetings we had but there's a lot of work going forward that we need to do to work this out yet.

Kynoch says relations between the two industries remain strong.
He says there is a good understanding of the issues on both sides of the border and the two industries are united on the Mandatory COOL this issue.
For Farmscape.Ca, I'm Bruce Cochrane.

[farmers_son]

I don’t think a discussion on Country of Origin Labeling and U.S. policy in regards to non tariff barriers of Canadian live cattle and beef imports can be made in isolation from U.S. imports of crucial Candian oil and gas.

To that end I did some searching and found a very interesting site that also should be required reading for cattle producers on both sides of the 49th parallel.

See the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government) http://www.eia.doe.gov/

In particular imports by country:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

“Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in November 2007 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.50 million barrels per day to the United States. Including that country, a total of five countries exported over 1.00 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 74 percent of United States crude oil imports in November while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 89 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for November were Canada (1.919 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.530 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.484 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.227 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.215 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.508 million barrels per day), Angola (0.408 million barrels per day), Colombia (0.197 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.184 million barrels per day), and Ecuador (0.154 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.948 million barrels per day in November, which is an increase of 0.172 million barrels per day from October 2007.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in November, exporting 2.428 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.411 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.581 million barrels per day.”

As well Canada supplies 75% of U.S. natural gas imports.

See:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_m.htm


The U.S. imports more petroleum products from Canada and Mexico than it does from Saudi Arabia which is third. When you contrast the relationship that the U.S. has with Canada to Saudi Arabia you would wonder where the U.S perceives any value in antagonizing relations with Canada and particularly the province of Alberta which is Canada’s number one producer of both cattle and oil/gas.

Also please see an interesting document on U.S./Saudi relations:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33533.pdf

It seems to me the Americans should be falling all over themselves to buy Canadian.

[Willowcreek]

Some progressive Canadian producers can now see the value in identifying their product- truthfully labeling it for the consumers- and promoting and marketing it...

Telling the consumers the truth on the origin of their food products should be an "automatic" in every country of the world- while only the US and Canada don't have it (US will by the end of the year)- and only a few old Canucks who think they can go back to the "status quo" of 2003 are fighting it....

And they're too dumb/bullheaded to see that it ain't gonna happen--2003 will not exist again....And in the very near future when the Argentine and Brazilian beef are flooding into the country- they will be wishing they had an M-COOL....
An ATTA-BOY to these folks that are looking to improve their marketing ability and be ready for all that comes in the future...

-----------------------------------
Quote:
Farmers seek clear definition of 'Canadian'

Last Updated: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | 5:06 PM AT

CBC News - Canada



Labelling on packaged foods will be on the minds of farmers at P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture meetings Friday in Summerside.



Executive director Ian MacIsaac told CBC News Thursday that members will vote on a number of resolutions concerning foreign competition, including asking the government for clear labelling of what is Canadian and what is not.


"We want a better definition of what is product of Canada," said MacIsaac.



"We want it to say, 'Grown in Canada,' and we want it to say 100 per cent of that product that is in the can or in the package was actually grown in Canada."



Currently, product of Canada labelling refers to the value of what is in the package, and because packages can sometimes be more valuable than the produce, a label reading product of Canada can be affixed to food grown in other countries.


The federation will also discuss levelling the field with respect to foreign competition when it comes to food safety standards.



"We want the government to realize, either we are able to use the same production techniques as people outside Canada, or those products aren't allowed in our grocery store shelves," said MacIsaac.



Given hard times for many traditional Island farm products, the meeting will also focus on new opportunities for producers, including new crops such as canola, soybeans or growing sugar beets to be used for producing ethanol.



MacIssac said there are also resolutions calling for more government assistance to help farmers through the current financial crisis.



cbc.ca

[farmers_son]

I have seen that post of yours before. What that refers to is voluntary Country of Origin Labeling and I am sure everyone is in favour of that. It can not be said enough times, Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, put into place by government with government regulated fines and restrictions is not about marketing, it is about creating non tariff barriers to other countries beef. And given the special live cattle trade that exists between Canada and the U.S. it is very reasonable to suggest that the U.S. is specifically targeting Canada with the new COOL rules. It will restrict Canadian access to U.S. feedlots, packing plants and retail meat coolers.

It has already been pointed out that COOL is not permitted under the NAFTA agreement. The U.S apparently feels that it does not have to live up to the NAFTA agreement.

I remain dumbfounded that the U.S. believes any of their national interests could be served by COOL. If we look to the war in the Middle East and the contribution Canada is making in Operation Enduring Freedom (the war in Afghanistan) I cannot justify in my mind why the U.S. would even consider taking trade actions against an important ally in Afghanistan.

Please see:

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

As of today, 78 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan protecting American freedom. Why in this world, I mean I just cannot understand it, why in this world are Americans saying Canadian beef cannot be sold in U.S. store yet our young men and women are in Afghanistan right now fighting along side U.S. soldiers. Where is the reason in that. We fight your wars, we sell you our oil and gas, we are your number one trading partner and this is what we get. Maybe the Americans just do not know what is going on.

Please check this out:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/afghanistan/story.html?id=e12d7e64-f615-457a-bb9b-b9d1596eccf1

There have been more deaths since then. Now tell me why Canadian beef has to be kept out of U.S. retail coolers, and tell me why the U.S. government is putting laws into place that will see Canadian live cattle kept out of U.S. packing plants, why U.S. feedlots cannot buy Canadian live cattle because of COOL. Not only were the Americans making money selling our beef and processing our live cattle and this will not happen after COOL but COOL is a slap in the face of the United States number one source of oil and gas and a crucial ally in the war in Afghanistan.

COOL is anti American.

[jensend]

farmers_son i have a question or two for you. do you think the americans did a good job of living up to their trade agreement obligations regarding canadian beef until now or has there been unnecessary footdragging to aid the american packers operating in canada? what will it take to convince you the americans don't take their obligations regarding free trade of beef and cattle seriously? in other words, how much time do you give them to live up to their word and agreements? so far it looks like you and other people who support the abp, cca line say your strategy has worked because it has persisted but that doesn't mean it has been successful. we're now almost five years down the road and billions of dollars of damage have been done because the usa did not keep its word and i see little evidence they ever will. because the american economy is in recession i see them being even less inclined to keep a deal. you might as well realize america is for america and is not your friend.

[grassfarmer]

Why do the Americans act in this way farmers_son? because they can - and because up until now they have got away with it. What we need is a Canadian Government with some backbone to stand up to them. Of course that's not going to happen because so many of our politicians are bought and paid for by US corporate interests. Also how much importance do you think is given to a bunch of western ranchers by Ottawa? Never mind Ottawa look at Alberta - do you think they will "switch off the oil" to help said western ranchers? Looking at their new environmental policy that indicates that they don't give a damn about the future of any Albertans just as long as they can maximise resource extraction (oilsands to sell to the US)indicates to me that our own province has the same problems as Ottawa. Seems like the whole country is set up for resource exploitation by foreign (largely US) corporate interests. Agricultural production will be exploited just as much as oil, gas, minerals, timber, our labour etc.

[farmers_son]

I need to correct something I said in my last post. COOL is not a slap in the face of the United States' number one source of oil and gas and a crucial ally in the war in Afghanistan. It is a stab in the back.

I agree with the tone of Grassfarmers post. The U.S does pursue its best interest in matters of trade and foreign relations. However COOL is not in the American’s best interest. I believe, as many U.S. cattlemen believe, that the U.S. cattleman will see no benefit from COOL but when you consider the bigger picture, trade and foreign affairs, national defense then COOL is clearly not in the U.S. national interest and why in the world is it even on the table.

I think there are U.S. cattle producers who do appreciate the relationship Canada has with the United States. I think there are members of the U.S. administration as well as potential members of the next administration who appreciate the relationship Canada has with the United States. We are talking about a U.S. law when we are speaking about COOL. We need to communicate to these Americans common sense that COOL is not in the United States best interest. I hope we are successful in that.

In the meantime I think Canadian producers need to be talking with their Members of Parliament about COOL. The United States will not be the only NAFTA country having an election in 2008.

[Willowcreek]

QUOTE {{{{{{Executive director Ian MacIsaac told CBC News Thursday that members will vote on a number of resolutions concerning foreign competition, including asking the government for clear labelling of what is Canadian and what is not.


"We want a better definition of what is product of Canada," said MacIsaac.



"We want it to say, 'Grown in Canada,' and we want it to say 100 per cent of that product that is in the can or in the package was actually grown in Canada."



Currently, product of Canada labelling refers to the value of what is in the package, and because packages can sometimes be more valuable than the produce, a label reading product of Canada can be affixed to food grown in other countries. }}}}}}}}


Farmers_son-- You better reread that article...It appears that these Canuck folks are asking for the same thing that US producers and US consumers are asking for...

Asking the government for a better definition of what is Product of the USA- and asking that food grown in another country can't be so labeled--like the Canadian/Mexican/Aussie/Uruguayan/etc beef/meat that is passed off as US beef is now....

[farmers_son]

PEI is a very nice place and I find the people there great. And no doubt R-Calf supporters are good people too. I have no way of knowing if the PEI Federation of Agriculture speaks for the majority of producers on PEI but I know R-Calf does not speak for the majority of American cattle producers.

I continue to hope most American cattle producers are fair people. And I continue to hope that Canada's efforts in Afghanistan are not for nothing.

I believe some of the Canadian boys who were lost in Afghanstan were from farms in Alberta and Saskatchewan. A neighbour boy from a few miles North of here joined up last week knowing full well where he would be stationed. Why are our boys good enough to fight your wars but our beef is not good enough to be sold in your stores?

I say it again, COOL is anti American. It will not increase the price of live cattle for your producers and it is a non tariff trade barrier with an important trade partner and ally. Would the Americans rather have Saudi Arabia for its northern neighbour, or Libya or even Japan? Canada is not China either. Figure it out.